Legal Research
Cases
Collins v AMP Superannuation Limited

Collins v AMP Superannuation Limited

Case [2000] FCA 1110 7 August 2000

Type to search within this case.

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Collins v AMP Superannuation Limited [2000] FCA 1110
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for extension of time to file and serve notice of appeal – whether any prospects of success.
COURTS AND JUDGES – disqualification – judges owning shares in parent company of respondent trustee – whether reasonable apprehension of bias.
Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act 1993 (Cth), ss 14, 46.
Federal Court Rules, O 52, r 15.
Collins v AMP Superannuation Ltd [2000] FCA 290, cited.
Collins v AMP Superannuation Ltd (1997) 75 FCR 565, cited.
Jess v Scott (1986) 12 FCR 187, followed.
Blair v Curran (1939) 62 CLR 464, cited.
Rogers v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 251, cited.
Webb v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 41, cited.
Mobil Oil Australia Ltd v Wellcome International Pty Ltd (1998) 81 FCR 475, cited.
Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (1999) 91 FCR 353, cited.
Clenae Pty Ltd v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [1999] VSCA 35, followed.
Re Jury; Ashton v Prentice (1999) 92 FCR 68, cited.
KIMBERLEY ELLEN COLLINS & ANOR v AMP SUPERANNUATION LIMITED & ORS
A 26 of 2000
SACKVILLE, KATZ & KENNY JJ
7 AUGUST 2000
CANBERRA

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY

A 26 OF 2000

BETWEEN:

KIMBERLEY ELLEN COLLINS and EMMA MARIA COLLINS by their next friend GABRIELLA JEAN PISCIONERI
APPLICANTS

AND:

AMP SUPERANNUATION LIMITED, the Trustee of the Maritime Officers Superannuation Fund
FIRST RESPONDENT

JUSTIN COLLINS and NICHOLAS COLLINS
SECOND RESPONDENTS

JUDGES:

SACKVILLE, KATZ & KENNY JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

7 AUGUST 2000

WHERE MADE:

CANBERRA

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application for an extension of time be dismissed.
2.The applicants pay the costs of the first and second respondents.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY

A 26 OF 2000

BETWEEN:

KIMBERLEY ELLEN COLLINS and EMMA MARIA COLLINS by their next friend GABRIELLA JEAN PISCIONERI
APPLICANTS

AND:

AMP SUPERANNUATION LIMITED, the Trustee of the Maritime Officers Superannuation Fund
FIRST RESPONDENT

JUSTIN COLLINS and NICHOLAS COLLINS
SECOND RESPONDENTS

JUDGE:

SACKVILLE, KATZ & KENNY JJ

DATE:

7 AUGUST 2000

PLACE:

CANBERRA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
THE COURT:
THE APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

This is an application for an extension of time in which to file and serve a notice of appeal from a judgment of Finn J, given on 8 March 2000: Collins v AMP Superannuation Ltd [2000] FCA 290. His Honour granted the present applicants an extension of time in which to file and serve an appeal against a decision of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal (“the Tribunal”), given on 27 October 1997. Nonetheless, Finn J dismissed the appeal.
The effect of Finn J's orders was to leave in place the determination of the Tribunal. By that determination, the Tribunal dismissed complaints made by the applicants concerning a…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Collins v AMP Superannuation Limited

Details

AGLC: Collins v AMP Superannuation Limited [2000] FCA 1110
Case: [2000] FCA 1110
Decision Date: 7 AUGUST 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Collins v AMP Superannuation Limited concerned the eligibility of certain individuals to participate in legal proceedings. The dispute was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The central issue was whether certain judges were disqualified from participating in the case due to potential bias or conflicts of interest. This question arose from the involvement of these judges in earlier proceedings related to the same matter.

The court had to determine whether the actions of Sackville J and Kenny J in previous proceedings constituted grounds for disqualification. The legal issues involved interpreting the principles of judicial disqualification and applying them to the specific circumstances of the case. The court considered whether the previous involvement of the judges in related matters created a reasonable apprehension of bias, and whether this could affect their impartiality in the current proceedings.

After thorough examination, the court concluded that neither Sackville J nor Kenny J was disqualified from participating in the case. The reasoning relied on the principles set out in the case of Re Jury. The court found that the previous involvement of the judges did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. The decision followed the approach in Re Jury, which emphasized the importance of maintaining the integrity of the judicial process while allowing for the efficient handling of related matters. The court dismissed the application for an extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal, and ordered the applicants to pay the costs of the first and second respondents.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for an extension of time be dismissed.

2. The applicants pay the costs of the first and second respondents.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

It was for these reasons that the Court took the view that neither Sackville J nor Kenny J was disqualified from participation in the proceedings. The decision was taken by the Court in conformity with the approach taken in Re Jury: see at [19].CONCLUSION The application for an extension of time in which to file and serve a notice of appeal should be dismissed. The Court is of the view that costs should follow the event. Accordingly, the applicants must pay the costs of the first and second respondents.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Collins v AMP Superannuation Limited [2000] FCA 1110

Most Recent Citation

Hamod v State of New South Wales [2002] FCA 1348

Cases citing this decision · 1 of 1 shown

Hamod v State of New South Wales
[2002] FCA 1348 Para 3

…In the course of his reasons for judgment ( Hamod v State of New South Wales [2000] FCA 1110), Gyles J observed as follows at [8]: “I have not as yet closely examined or analysed the application or the statement of claim. Suffice to say that they are prolix, and that a number of causes of action are referred to. T…

View all 1 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 10 of 10 shown

Collins v AMP Superannuation Ltd
[2000] FCA 290 Para 1

…an extension of time in which to file and serve a notice of appeal from a judgment of Finn J, given on 8 March 2000: Collins v AMP Superannuation Ltd [2000] FCA 290. His Honour granted the present applicants an extension of time in which to file and serve an appeal against a decision of the Superannuation Complai…
Re Jury; Ashton v Prentice
[1999] FCA 671 Para 31

…ss it could be shown that there was a reasonable apprehension of bias. This approach was later followed by a Full Court in Re Jury; Ashton v Prentice (1999) 92 FCR 68. In the present case, neither Sackville J nor Kenny J holds shares in a party to the proceeding. The shares are held in a publicly listed company, of…
Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy
[1999] FCA 110 Para 30

…ge having a direct pecuniary interest in the outcome of proceedings ought to disqualify himself or herself. In Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (1999) 91 FCR 353, at 366, a Full Court accepted, despite the reservations of a number of learned commentators, that unless and until the High Court decides otherwise,…
Mobil Oil Australia Ltd v Wellcome International Pty Ltd
[1998] FCA 205 Para 25

…the case: Webb v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 41, at 47, n 36, and the authorities cited there; Mobil Oil Australia Ltd v Wellcome International Pty Ltd (1998) 81 FCR 475, at 493.…
Collins v AMP Superannuation Ltd
[1997] FCA 643 Para 9

…Merkel J upheld the Trustee's appeal: Collins v AMP Superannuation Ltd (1997) 75 FCR 565. His Honour held that the Tribunal had erred in law in a number of respects. The errors included taking into account amendments to the Deed that had come into force only after the deceased's death and in failing to consider the…
Rogers v The Queen
[1994] HCA 42 Para 21

…is alleged or denied, the existence of which is a matter necessarily decided by the prior judgment, decree or order.” See also Rogers v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 251, at 261-262, per Brennan J. In the circumstances identified in Blair v Curran , the person adversely affected by the decision is prevented from reagitati…
Webb v the Queen
[1994] HCA 30 Para 25

…judges is whether fair-minded people might reasonably apprehend or suspect that the judge has prejudged or might prejudge the case: Webb v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 41, at 47, n 36, and the authorities cited there; Mobil Oil Australia Ltd v Wellcome International Pty Ltd (1998) 81 FCR 475, at 493.…
Jess v Scott
[1986] FCA 473 Para 16

…o file and serve a notice of appeal. The well known principles governing the exercise of this power were stated by the Full Court in Jess v Scott (1986) 12 FCR 187, at 195. There is no need to repeat the principles here.…
Blair v Curran
[1939] HCA 23 Para 21

…In Blair v Curran (1939) 62 CLR 464, at 532, Dixon J stated that issue estoppel arises where: “for the purpose of some other claim or cause of action, a state of fact or law is alleged or denied, the existence of which is a matter necessarily decided by the prior judgment, decree or order.” See also Rogers v The Que…
Victorian Court of Appeal in Clenae Pty Ltd & Ors v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd
[1999] VSCA 35 Para 30

…cation where a judge has a direct pecuniary interest in the outcome of the proceedings. In Clenae Pty Ltd v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [1999] VSCA 35, the Victorian Court of Appeal held that the direct pecuniary principle should not be applied to a case where the judge merely holds a small sharehol…

Legislation cited in this decision · 1

Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act 1993 (Cth)
14, 46 3 mentions (from Para 2)

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY	A 26 OF 2000

BETWEEN:	KIMBERLEY ELLEN COLLINS and EMMA MARIA COLLINS by their next friend GABRIELLA JEAN PISCIONERI APPLICANTS
AND:	AMP SUPERANNUATION LIMITED, the Trustee of the Maritime Officers Superannuation Fund FIRST RESPONDENT JUSTIN COLLINS and NICHOLAS COLLINS SECOND RESPONDENTS
JUDGES:	SACKVILLE, KATZ & KENNY JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	7 AUGUST 2000
WHERE MADE:	CANBERRA

JUDGE:	SACKVILLE, KATZ & KENNY JJ
DATE:	7 AUGUST 2000
PLACE:	CANBERRA